Difference between revisions of "Status of Models"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Question=What is the status of '''models''' in the mosaic?
 
|Question=What is the status of '''models''' in the mosaic?
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=Is it possible for a model to provide a representation of any given theory? Do scientific models vary from scientific theories, and if so, what is there place in the mosaic? For example, the Copernican Model is a representation of the ideas expressed by Copernicanism; does the model vary from the theory, and how does it factor into different scientific mosaics?
+
|Description=In the contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to consider theories as sets of ''models''. In a sense, models are taken as something more fundamental than theories. In contrast, scientonomy has traditionally considered ''theory'' and ''proposition'' as synonyms. In the scientonomic context, propositions/theories are considered fundamental elements of a mosaic. This leaves the question of the status of models in a mosaic. Is ''model'' somehow different from ''a set of propositions''? I.e. is there anything in a model that cannot be reduced to propositions. E.g. is there anything in the Copernican heliocentric model that cannot be presented in a propositional form? If so, then models will have to be somehow incorporate into the ontology of scientific change. Otherwise, there will be no need in a concept of model separate from theories/propositions.
 
|Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific Change
 
|Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific Change
 
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
 
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,

Revision as of 20:17, 19 May 2017

What is the status of models in the mosaic?

In the contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to consider theories as sets of models. In a sense, models are taken as something more fundamental than theories. In contrast, scientonomy has traditionally considered theory and proposition as synonyms. In the scientonomic context, propositions/theories are considered fundamental elements of a mosaic. This leaves the question of the status of models in a mosaic. Is model somehow different from a set of propositions? I.e. is there anything in a model that cannot be reduced to propositions. E.g. is there anything in the Copernican heliocentric model that cannot be presented in a propositional form? If so, then models will have to be somehow incorporate into the ontology of scientific change. Otherwise, there will be no need in a concept of model separate from theories/propositions.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 April 2016Existence of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.Yes

All Theories

According to our records, no theory has attempted to answer this question.

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

There is currently no accepted answer to this question.


Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Ontology of Scientific Change.